Sanitation in Small Towns - Woliso, Ethiopia: Baseline Assessment Synthesis Report

Research Report
Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership
SANITATION IN SMALL TOWNS –

WOLISO, ETHIOPIA:
BASELINE ASSESSMENT SYNTHESIS REPORT
Tetra Tech
November 2018
Prepared by: Lucia Henry and Jonathan Annis, Tetra Tech
Reviewed by: John Butterworth (IRC), Daniel Hollander (UCB), and Pippa Scott (independent)
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the local team leader, Eyob
Defere Debrework.
About the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership: The Sustainable WASH Systems Learning
Partnership is a global United States Agency for International Development (USAID) cooperative agreement to
identify locally-driven solutions to the challenge of developing robust local systems capable of sustaining water,
sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) service delivery. This report is made possible by the generous support of the
American people through USAID under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-16-00075. The
contents are the responsibility of the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. For more information, visit
www.globalwaters.org/SWS, or contact Elizabeth Jordan (EJordan@usaid.gov).
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ i
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ ii
Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Baseline Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Emergence of a Learning Alliance ........................................................................................................................... 24
Annex 1: References ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Annex 2: List of Process Indicators for Sustainability of Service Delivery Collected at Baseline ............... 26
Annex 3: City Service Delivery Assessment Output for Woliso, Ethiopia (September 2017) ................... 27
Annex 4: Service Provider Level Sustainability Score ......................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. SWS Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Administrative (Regional) Map of Ethiopia ............................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Sanitation Value Chain (Including Stakeholders Responsible for Each Step in the Ethiopian
Context) ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Containment Types from the Household Survey ................................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Type of Emptying Services Used when Pits/Septic Tank is Full ........................................................ 10
Figure 6. Timeline of Utility Emptying Services Operation ................................................................................ 11
Figure 7. SFD for Woliso ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Information-sharing Relationship Network, with Core Group Involved in Horizontal
Coordination...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9. Coordination Network with Notable Clusters Highlighted ............................................................. 22
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT i

List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of Tools Used in the Baseline Assessment ........................................................................... 5
Table 2. CSDA Scorecard for Woliso, Ethiopia .................................................................................................. 15
Table 3. Mechanisms for Financing Sanitation Services in Woliso .................................................................... 17
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT ii

Acronyms
CSDA City Service Delivery Assessment
ETB Ethiopian Birr (Currency)
FS Fecal Sludge
FSM Fecal Sludge Management
IFML Iterative Factor Mapping and Learning
IUSHS Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy
KII Key Informant Interview
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ONA Organizational Network Analysis
OWNP ONE WASH National Program
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SFD Fecal Waste Flow Diagram (also known as Shit Flow Diagram)
SWS Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership
UCB University of Colorado Boulder
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WWSSE Woliso Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT iii

Glossary
Actors Stakeholders who directly or indirectly influence the WASH system. This can
refer to specific individuals or organizations (e.g., water operators, health
extension workers, water committees, non-governmental organizations, and
government agencies).
Enabling A set of interrelated sector functions that permit governments and public and
environment private partners to engage in the WASH service delivery development processes
in a sustained and effective manner. This includes all the policy, capacity,
institutional, and financial frameworks necessary for sustaining and replicating
WASH schemes. A positive enabling environment builds the attitudes, capacity,
and practices for effective and efficient functioning of organizations and
individuals.
Facilities The physical infrastructure that collects, treats, and distributes water or collects,
transports, treats, and disposes of waste (e.g., pumps, pipes, wells, and tanks).
Factors Any element, aspect, or component of the WASH service system thought to
directly or indirectly influence the WASH system (e.g., finances, water
resources, policies, and management).
Organizational A methodology that employs Social Network Analysis for mapping and
Network Analysis measuring of connections between organizations.
Stakeholders Persons or organizations with a vested interest or influence on WASH systems.
Systems thinking A perspective of seeing and understanding systems as wholes, rather than as a
collection of parts, where the outcomes of the system are a result of the
complex, dynamic interaction and interdependence of the components (factors)
of the system.
Systems tool A specific activity or form of analysis for extracting information on system
properties (e.g., factors, actors, interconnections, and feedbacks) to gain
understanding of the causes of system behavior or outputs. Systems tools can
include qualitative and/or quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis.
Systems-based An adaptive set of multifaceted interventions that support individual,

approach organizational, institutional, and broader systems change with consideration for
processes, relationships, and incentives for performance toward improving
effective service delivery.
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT iv

WASH network The formal and informal structure of actors and their interconnections
(relationships) to one another that influence WASH system sustainability.
WASH services The outputs of a system that provide affordable access to clean water and safe
sanitation, with considerations for monitoring, maintenance, and accountability
between consumers, operators, and regulators.
WASH system All of the social, technical, institutional, environmental, financial factors, actors,
motivations, and interactions that influence WASH service delivery within a
given context, institutional, or geo-political boundary.
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT v

Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of a baseline assessment of sanitation services in Woliso, Ethiopia
conducted September 4–8, 2017, and the outcomes of a subsequent stakeholders’ workshop to discuss,
understand, and verify the results.1 This work was carried out under the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) funded Sustainable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
Systems Learning Partnership (SWS).
SWS partners Tetra Tech, IRC, LINC, and the University of Colorado at Boulder (UCB) jointly
conducted the assessment. To understand the sanitation service delivery context in Woliso, the
assessment focused on: (1) containment and excreta management services, (2) the enabling environment
for achieving and sustaining universal access to safely managed sanitation services, and (3) the nature of
relationships between local actors involved in service delivery.
Multiple lenses of analysis were used. Tetra Tech deployed Fecal Waste Flow Diagrams (also known as
Shit Flow Diagram or SFD) and the City Service Delivery Assessment (CSDA), two diagnostic tools
developed by the World Bank. IRC used its Sustainability Checks tool and LINC applied an
Organizational Network Analysis (ONA). UCB led an application of the Iterative Factor Mapping and
Learning (IFML) tool.
Key Findings
A household survey targeted 160 respondents from individual households across all seven kebeles
(administrative divisions or wards) in Woliso, the smallest administrative unit classified by the
Government of Ethiopia. 40 percent of respondents reported use of an improved household toilet and
44 percent reported using an unimproved household facility, as per WHO/UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring
Program 2017 definitions.2 Twelve percent of respondents reported shared sanitation practices, either
using their neighbors’ toilets, communal toilets, or public facilities. Four percent of surveyed households
practice open defecation. Twenty-four percent of non-owners (e.g., tenants) reported using shared
facilities compared to 7 percent of owners.
This assessment used data from the household survey along with information from key informants to
develop the SFD. Only an estimated 18 percent of fecal sludge (FS) generated in Woliso is safely
managed until disposal. Moreover, 4 percent, 66 percent, and 11 percent of FS is not safely managed at
the containment, emptying, and transport stages respectively. This signifies deficiencies in services after
the containment stage. Traditional dry pit latrines are the most common toilet technology in the town.
The local utility offers FS emptying and transport services, but they are intermittent and only serve a
small portion of the population. FS collected by the utility’s vacuum truck is disposed of in open fields
and is often used by farmers as a soil conditioner.
1
A separate report on the sanitation stakeholders’ workshop is available.
2 Accessed at: https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation (September 6, 2018).
WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 1

The CSDA reveals a service delivery system with many challenges. While some policies and institutional
arrangements are in place, the town lacks a sanitation strategic plan and public investments in sanitation
are not prioritized by either the utility or the municipality. Building codes and environmental regulations
exist but are not enforced. Households with substandard latrines or commercial polluters, including
hotels and other private businesses, often skirt the regulations. Financing for sanitation services remains
limited, most notably in the domains of treatment and disposal, a situation likely to be exacerbated by
the town’s growing population. The results of the Sustainability Checks largely confirmed findings
from the CSDA. The results of this tool were more practical to apply and easier for local leaders to
interpret than the CSDA, which suggests Sustainability Checks may be a more appropriate tool for
assessing the enabling environment for sanitation services delivery in small towns like Woliso.
The ONA reveals clear core and periphery communication networks among stakeholders involved in
sanitation service delivery, with a core group comprised of key public-sector actors and a periphery
group comprised of the Municipal Finance and Economic Development Office and the Women’s
Association. The ONA suggests deficiencies in the types of relationships among key stakeholders in
areas of coordination and information sharing. Furthermore, the absence of the Women’s Association in
the core network indicates a critical missed opportunity to develop inclusive and sustainable solutions
that respond to the needs of low-income and tenant households for whom shared facilities with reliable
fecal sludge management (FSM) services are the most viable means of improving their sanitation
situation.
The results of the IFML confirmed the main findings from the ONA (both highlighted coordination
issues) and the key informant interviews (KIIs) (e.g., finance and disposal sites). Continued interactions
through the learning alliance should reveal further insights into these and other underlying factors.
The overall assessment of sanitation services in Woliso reveals a mixed picture. Despite the town’s
focus on improving the provision of communal toilets, which has contributed to an increase in access,
there is a lack of adequate sanitation services and representation of direct beneficiaries of those services
(i.e., the users) in decision making and planning. Ensuring an inclusive and coordinated approach is likely
to result in delivery of more sustainable and improved sanitation services.
An important outcome of the assessment was engaging a group of local actors involved in sanitation
service delivery who subsequently organized into a local learning alliance, a self-selecting group of
individuals and organizations who influence the effectiveness and sustainability of the sanitation service
delivery system and are committed to improving system performance. SWS gave learning alliance
members an opportunity to provide feedback on the results of the assessment as a first step to
enhancing their understanding of the service delivery system. They were also asked to identify potential
SWS interventions aimed at improving the sustainability of sanitation services over the life of the
project.

Introduction
Purpose of the Baseline
This report presents findings of a baseline assessment of sanitation services in Woliso, Ethiopia
conducted from September 4–8, 2017, and the outcomes of a sanitation stakeholders’ workshop on
November 9–10, 2017 to discuss, understand, and verify results of the assessment.
A baseline assessment of service delivery across the sanitation value chain, focused on actors and
factors, is critical to the first intermediate result of the SWS Theory of Change (see Figure 1) and serves
to initiate dialogue with local stakeholders to establish needs and priorities for the project to address
(intermediate result, “Needs and priorities established collectively”).
Figure 1. SWS Theory of Change
Tetra Tech collaborated with IRC, LINC, and the University of Colorado at Boulder (UCB) to conduct
the assessment with the following three objectives:
1. To qualify the extent and current operations of containment and excreta management services;
2. To qualify the enabling environment (e.g., policies, strategies, and institutional arrangements) for
sanitation; and
3. To qualify the nature of relationships among actors involved in service delivery.
The assessment engaged 15 stakeholder groups involved in sanitation service delivery who eventually
organized into a local learning alliance, a self-selecting group of individuals and organizations who
influence the sanitation service delivery system and are committed to improving system outputs and
sustainability.3 The baseline assessment provided learning alliance members insights for prioritization and
3 Participants included sector managers (2), sector heads (8), team leaders (3), technical experts/officers (5), community
representatives (3), service providers (1), civil society organizations (2), and academic institutions (1).

planning of potential SWS interventions aimed at improving the sustainability of sanitation services over
the life of the project.
Woliso Context
Woliso is the capital of the South West Shewa Zone in the Oromia Region, located on the Addis
Ababa-Jimma road, approximately 110 kilometers southwest of Addis Ababa (see Figure 2). Woliso has
a population of 61,140, according to the 2007 census conducted by the Central Statistics Authority of
Ethiopia. However, the municipality estimates the actual figure is now closer to 100,000. There are
seven officially recognized kebeles (administrative divisions or wards). The town is served by two
hospitals, fifteen health clinics, and two health stations. It hosts a Faculty of Social Science campus for
the region’s Ambo University and three private colleges. Woliso has seven hotels and the town’s main
economic activities are commerce, tourism, and manufacturing.
Figure 2. Administrative (Regional) Map of Ethiopia

Methodology
Tools and Methods
SWS applied five distinct diagnostic tools as part of the baseline assessment. These looked collectively at
the nature of sanitation services being delivered in Woliso and the enabling environment related to their
sustainability (SFD, CSDA, Sustainability Checks); the interactions of local actors and organizations
involved in service delivery (ONA); and the factors, and their interconnections, affecting sustainable
service delivery that local actors considered to be most important (IFML). Table 1 presents specifics for
each of the tools applied, categorized by the three study objectives.
Table 1. Overview of Tools Used in the Baseline Assessment
Data Collection
Tool Purpose Outputs
Methods
Objective 1: To qualify the extent and current operations of excreta management services in Woliso
Fecal Waste Flow To illustrate the flows of excreta on a • Household survey SFD for the city
Diagram (also known city-wide scale across the sanitation • KIIs
as Shit Flow Diagram value chain. • Secondary data
or SFD)4 • Focus group
discussions
• Observations or
transect walks
Objective 2: To qualify the enabling environment for sustainable sanitation services in Woliso
City Service Delivery To understand the extent to which • KIIs CSDA scorecard
Assessment (CSDA)5 enabling factors for achieving • Secondary data
universal and sustainable sanitation
services are present.
Sustainability Checks To assess the likelihood of • KIIs Sustainability Checks
sustainable services across multiple • Secondary data scorecard
factor areas (similar to the CSDA).
Adapted for the Ethiopian context by
IRC.
Iterative Factor To identify factors that influence the • KIIs Cross Impact Matrix;
Mapping and Learning sustainability of sanitation services • Facilitated group Influence Mapping,
(IFML) and assess the strength, dynamics, discussion with key Centrality Analysis,
and interactions between them. stakeholders Causal Loop Analysis
4 SFD Initiative (2014)

5 World Bank (2013)

Data Collection
Tool Purpose Outputs
Methods
Objective 3: To qualify the nature of relationships among local actors involved in service delivery in
Woliso
Organizational To understand the nature of • KIIs A series of network
Network Analysis relationships by quantifying and maps and quantitative
(ONA) visualizing the structure and changes analyses
within the stakeholder network.
Eight indicators related to outputs and outcomes of the sanitation service delivery system were
collected at the baseline and will be tracked over the life of the project:
1. Number of authorized and operational disposal site(s);
2. Monthly volume of sludge disposed of at authorized disposal site;
3. Monthly volume of sludge removed by vacuum truck;
4. Percentage of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for FSM recovered through tariffs;
5. Utility’s annual spending on sanitation services;
6. Municipal investment in sanitation services;
7. Number of visits per month by vacuum trucks (disaggregated by private versus commercial
customers); and
8. Number of operational (including clear maintenance plans) public and communal toilets.
Additionally, over the life of the project the same diagnostic tools will be re-applied to monitor changes
in the service delivery system resulting from SWS interventions. The ONA will be repeated twice, at the
mid- and end-line, while the CSDA, Sustainability Checks, and SFD will be repeated only at the end-line.
Data Collection and Sampling

From September 4–9, 2017, SWS collected primary data for the SFD, CSDA, and Sustainability Checks
via household surveys, KIIs, and focus group discussions. KIIs to gather data for the ONA and IFML
occurred from September 18–22, 2017.
Household Survey. Household surveys targeted 160 respondents from individual households across
all seven kebeles in Woliso. This sample represented approximately 1.4 percent of households in the
town.6 In the absence of accurate and disaggregated population data at the kebele level, the number of
6 Calculation based on average household size: 4.6 (urban) and 4.8 (rural) (Central Statistical Agency, 2007).

respondents per kebele was calculated based on relative population distributions from the 2007 census.
On the first day of data collection, enumerators observed that kebele 03, 04, and 06 were considerably
homogenous compared to the larger and more socioeconomically diverse kebele 01. As a result, the
local team leader increased the number of respondents in kebele 01 by about 5 percent to ensure this
diversity was reflected in the results. Households were systematically sampled by starting at the
entrance of the kebele from the main access road and identifying every fourth house on the opposite
side of the road, a method applied by the local team leader in earlier exercises for the World Bank.
In compounds with multiple households, only one household per compound was interviewed.
Enumerators spoke with the head of household (or if unavailable, the spouse of the head of household),
an elder in the household, or the person who had resided longest in the house. A total of 151
respondents granted consent and proceeded with the survey while nine households declined to
participate. Of the respondents, 52 percent owned their homes and 48 percent were tenants.
A team of three enumerators, trained and led by the team leader, carried out the survey, with one
enumerator per household interviewed. Interviews were administered in Amharic, with responses
entered in English into a tablet pre-loaded with the survey form created on the mWater platform.7
Survey data was uploaded to the open source mWater server. All tools were pilot tested before the
survey and adapted in response to enumerator and respondent feedback. The team leader accompanied
each enumerator during their initial 3 to 4 surveys to ensure proper administration of the survey
instrument.
KIIs. Prior to the survey, SWS compiled a list of representatives from 15 key institutions involved in
sanitation service delivery in Woliso based on initial interactions with the utility and municipal
leadership. The list included 12 municipal representatives along with individual representatives from the
utility, community, and private sector. Two sets of KIIs were scheduled with representatives from each
institution. The first was for the SFD, CSDA, and Sustainability Checks tools and a second for the joint
ONA and IFML questionnaire. The team leader conducted the first round of KIIs in Amharic with
responses recorded on paper in English. In some cases, follow-up one-on-one interviews were held with
other key persons identified by sector heads or managers. Two enumerators trained by LINC
performed the second round of KIIs. Questions were asked in Amharic with responses recorded on a
digital tablet.
Focus Group Discussions. SWS conducted two focus group discussions with community
representatives. One was in kebele 03 involving six persons (two men, four women) and one in kebele
07 involving six persons (two men, four women). Participants were all users of communal latrines,
selected in collaboration with the Women’s Associations managing these facilities in their respective
kebeles. All questions were administered in Amharic and responses were recorded in English.
7 http://www.mwater.co/

Baseline Results
The sanitation value chain (see Figure 3) provides a framework for presenting the baseline assessment
results related to the service delivery environment (Objective 1: to qualify the extent and current
operations of containment and excreta management services – including baseline values for the output
and outcomes indicators listed in Annex 2 on page 26) and the enabling environment (Objective 2: to
qualify the enabling environment). Objective 3 findings, related to the nature of the relationships among
local actors involved in service delivery, are not presented in terms of the sanitation value chain. These
instead focused on three types of communication interactions within the network.
Containment
Emptying Transport Treatment Disposal
(Household/
(Utility) (Utility) (Municipality) (Municipality)
Municipality)
Figure 3. Sanitation Value Chain (Including Stakeholders Responsible for Each Step in the Ethiopian Context)
Objective 1: To qualify the extent and current operations of containment and excreta
management services in Woliso
Containment
Household Sanitation. Sixty-six percent of respondents with private facilities reported using a dry pit
latrine, of which 22 percent were categorized as “improved” in accordance with WHO/UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Program 2017 definitions. Eighteen percent reported using a pour flush facility into a pit or
septic tank system. Additionally, 13 percent of respondents reported using shared sanitation, with 3
percent using their neighbors’ toilets, 4 percent using communal toilets, and 5 percent using public
toilets. Four percent of households surveyed practice open defecation (see Figure 4 on page 9).
Interestingly, 24 percent of tenants reported using shared sanitation services compared to 7 percent of
owners.

Dry pit with traditional slab
44%
(unimproved)
Dry pit with washable slab 3% 4% 5% 4%
22%
(improved)
Pour flush into direct or
8%
offset pit (improved)
Pour flush connected to
7%
septic tank (improved)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Automatic flush connected
3%
to septic (improved) Neighbor's toilet Communal toilet
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Public toilet Open defecation
Type of household toilet Shared facilities and open defecation
Figure 4. Containment Types from the Household Survey
Communal Toilets. Communal toilets shared by several households provide an essential sanitation
service to households in Woliso. The town has 42 communal toilet blocks, most constructed by various
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and handed over to community user groups. Each communal
toilet has a designated Women’s Association overseeing its operation and upkeep. The management
quality and cleanliness of the facilities varies across the city. Despite guidance from the national
government on setting tariff rates, many associations do not have established rates that support
sustained O&M of the toilets. The survey discovered many communal facilities in a state of disrepair.
Indeed, some have begun to overflow with FS in the absence of a regular emptying service. Twelve of
the 42 blocks were reported to be completely non-functional during data collection. The municipality
does not have an asset management plan in place to support the sustained operation of communal
toilets.
Public Toilets. Woliso has two public latrines managed by the municipality. Both have separate
facilities for women and men but were non-operational at the time of data collection. Anecdotal and
unsubstantiated reports indicate operational issues with the public toilets began after the recent closure
of the permanent disposal site. As with shared facilities, the municipality does not have an asset
management plan in place to support the functioning of the public toilets.
Emptying
As noted in Figure 4, 66 percent of the town’s population use traditional dry pit latrines. Pit latrines are
unlined and reportedly very deep. Household demand for emptying services is low,8 as the traditional
dry pits rarely fill up. Sixty percent of all respondents have never emptied their toilet. Of the
approximately 19 percent (N=30) of respondents who reported having a full pit, 50 percent procured
8 The utility manager reported emptying services were operating below maximum capacity and estimated the ideal workload
would be six trips per day.

emptying services by vacuum truck (municipal service and private company) and 10 percent used manual
pit-emptying, a highly stigmatized practice making it difficult to gather accurate data. Thirty-three
percent of respondents reported they had never emptied their full pits, in these cases the assumption is
the pits were covered with soil and abandoned (see Figure 5).
3%
7%
Paid someone else (manual
7% emptying)
33% Covered and dug another pit
Emptied it by myself (manual

emptying)
20% Contracted private company
Contracted the municipal service
Abandoned
30%
Figure 3. Type of Emptying Services Used when Pits/Septic Tank is Full
Households reported a wide range of costs for pit emptying—from less than Ethiopian Birr (ETB) 150
($5.27) per job for manual emptying services to more than ETB 900 ($31.60) for mechanical extraction
services provided by a private service provider. Costs were reported per service, without indication of
unit cost per volume of sludge extracted. Fifty-three percent of respondents who reported procuring
mechanized emptying services thought the service was affordable. Sixty percent of respondents in the
same group reported they would increase frequency of using the mechanical service if offered at a lower
price.
The local state-owned utility, the Woliso Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise (WWSSE), is the
primary provider of FS emptying services to private households and commercial customers (e.g., hotels).
Independent private operators from Addis Ababa occasionally provide FS emptying and transport
services to commercial customers, but information on the volumes of FS transported by these providers
was not obtainable.
In 2017, the WWSSE emptying service was suspended for three months following the closure of the
Woliso FS disposal site by the Municipal Environmental Protection and Climate Change Authority.
Emptying resumed August 2017 after the utility negotiated with farm owners to dispose of FS on their
land (see Figure 6 on page 11). Commercial customers continued to seek the services of private
operators during the suspension. Periods of suspension and resuming of emptying services by the utility
made it difficult to accurately establish the market share for FS services between private operators and
WWSSE.

According to WWSSE, when the service is operational, the average waiting period for emptying services
following receipt of a customer request is two days. Services were offered at a price of ETB 400
($14.37) per trip to households and ETB 600 ($21.78) per trip for non-domestic customers. In the
2015–2016 period, revenue from the emptying services accounted for about five percent of the utility’s
total revenue.9 WWSSE collected10 an average of 490 cubic meters (m3) of sludge per month from July
2015 to June 2016 and 337 m3 from July 2016 to April 2017.11
Transport
In 2013, WWSSE procured an 8 m3 vacuum truck to offer the emptying services described above. The
truck cannot access older parts of the town in kebeles 03 and 06. This was observed during transect
walks in kebele 03 and was reported during a focus group discussion (“…narrow access to get services
of tractor to collect solid waste or too narrow for even couples to walk side-by-side”). Most homes in
these neighborhoods were constructed prior to the establishment of building codes. Toilets are typically
deep pit latrines and are not designed for emptying.
Treatment and Disposal
Figure 6. Timeline of Utility Emptying Services Operation
The Woliso FS disposal site, located on the outskirts of the town, directly deposited fecal sludge into an
open and unlined pond. As previously noted, it was closed in June 2017 because of community
9 WWSSE total revenue 2015–2016 = water ($225,871) + sanitation ($12,329).

10 Calculated from trip logs and reconciled with revenue records by utility. It is assumed the volumes presented here are larger
than the actual volumes of waste in the pits or septic tanks; the extraction process involves the addition of water to produce a
slurry that can be extracted by the vacuum truck. Pits and septic tanks are not typically completely evacuated in the process.
11 Estimated total volume based on a total population of 100,000 and the assumption that average fecal (wet mass) produced is
0.128L/cap/day (Rose et al., 2015) = 384m3/month for Woliso. It is important to note: (1) volumes reported by the utility
contain additional water to facilitate emptying, and (2) estimates of total sludge produced are dependent on highly variable
data and assumptions such as total solid content and degradation.

complaints of unpleasant odors (see Figure 6 on page 11). In the absence of the disposal site, private
emptying operators coming from Addis Ababa agreed with farm owners located 10 to 20 km from the
town center to dispose of the waste on their land for use as a soil conditioner. Services resumed in
August 2017 after the utility arranged with farm landowners in the Osole, Bedessa, and Ejersa kebeles to
dispose of FS for a payment of ETB 100 ($3.51) per load, but the Environmental Protection and Climate
Change Authority terminated this arrangement in November. The municipality has since led numerous
attempts to address the disposal site issue, including establishing a task force for this purpose. The task
force recently identified two sites to the northeast of Woliso, just beyond the boundaries of the
municipality, but has yet to reach an agreement with the landowners.
Without a formal disposal site, arrangements are settled on an ad hoc basis between the truck
operators and local farmers. The Environmental Protection and Climate Change Authority tries to
discourage this practice but lacks the political will to enforce regulations against it and is aware of the
potential fallout with customers who rely on the regular emptying services.
Initial SFD
Figure 7 on page 13 presents an SFD developed with data collected from household surveys and
triangulated with responses from focus group discussions, KIIs, and a literature review. The SFD models
the sanitation situation at the time of the data collection, tracking where WWSSE domestic services
were operating. The following assumptions underpin its development:
1. The disposal site is closed, but informal arrangements exist with farm owners to accept FS
without treatment;
2. There is a 50 percent risk of groundwater contamination, as groundwater depth is reportedly 3

to 10 meters below the surface with a mix of impermeable and permeable soils;12
3. Thirty of the 42 communal toilets (71 percent) are functional and have been recently emptied;
4. Two public toilets are not functional and have not been emptied;
5. WWSSE mechanized emptying services have resumed; and
6. Twenty percent of households use private sector emptying services.
12 Spate Irrigation Network Foundation. February 2015. Status and Potential of Groundwater Use in Ethiopian Floodplains.

Figure 7. SFD for Woliso13
The SFD for Woliso shows 82 percent of all FS produced in the town is not safely managed. Fifty
percent of the onsite sanitation systems are emptied mechanically and transported for disposal. Scant
data exists regarding the non-domestic situation (e.g., in hotels and institutions), but some KIIs offered
anecdotal reports of indiscriminate disposal of industrial wastewater and FS into drains by some
manufacturers in the town (“they are the largest polluters”). Estimates from the utility indicate about 34
percent (approximately 166 cubic centimeters [cm3]/month) of the collected waste came from non-
domestic sources during a 12-month period between June 2015 and July 2016. The percentage split
between industrial wastewater and FS is not known. This value, however, should not be used because it
is suspected the percentage of waste collected is higher from non-domestic sources as: (1) hotels and
other institutions in the town will generate higher volumes of FS because they use waterborne sanitation
technologies and are more likely to procure emptying services, a situation reflected in the utility’s
records; and (2) only about 19 percent of all respondents reported emptying their pits or septic tanks.
13 The SFD presents a snapshot of the situation in September 2017.

Objective 2: To qualify the enabling environment for sustainable sanitation services in
Woliso
As shown in Table 1 on page 5, a variety of tools were employed to gather the information used to
respond to this objective. The CSDA provides a framework for assessing the comprehensiveness of the
enabling environment for sanitation service delivery. Seventeen questions addressing three broad pillars
(enabling services, developing services, and sustaining services) are posed along each component of the
sanitation service chain.14 Table 2 on page 15 presents the CSDA scoring matrix used by Tetra Tech for
Woliso. The CSDA was developed and tested for larger towns and cities. In applying the CSDA in
Woliso, the scoring matrix did not allow for the nuance of the situation to be accurately captured and
scores for some aspects appear higher than service delivery outputs would suggest.
The Sustainability Checks, a framework developed by IRC for use across multiple WASH services types
including urban sanitation, assesses enabling conditions for service delivery at three levels – service
provider, service authority, and national – to determine if services provided comply with minimum
established norms and standards. Annex 4 on page 34 presents results of the Sustainability Checks
scorecard used by IRC and Tetra Tech. Outputs of the CSDA and the Sustainability Checks were
comparable, but the results of the Sustainability Checks were more practical to apply and easier for local
leaders to interpret than the CSDA. This potentially makes it a more useful diagnostic approach for
small towns like Woliso.
The IFML was conducted to identify factors that influence the sustainability of WASH services and the
strength, dynamics, and interactions between them. It provides a tool to explore potential intervention
strategies to improve sanitation services. The findings overlap with insights from the baseline and
complement the results of the CSDA. Inputs for the IFML were generated by local stakeholders during a
two-hour facilitated session in November 2017. These inputs were then used to run three types of
complementary systems analyses (Influence Mapping, Centrality, and Causal Loop) to identify trends
regarding factor influence, importance, and key dynamic processes that drive the sanitation service
delivery system in Woliso. The narrative section uses the CSDA framework (enabling, developing, and
sustaining) to present the collective outputs of the three tools.
14 The CSDA scoring mechanism is presented in Annex 3 on page 27.

Table 2. CSDA Scorecard for Woliso, Ethiopia
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
End-use /
Disposal
CSDA Score (scoring range 0-3)
Policy 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Enabling Planning 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0
Budget 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0
Expenditure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Developing Equity 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Output 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0
Operation and Maintenance 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0
Sustaining Expansion 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0
Service outcomes 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
CSDA score: sum of all components 15 12 13 2.5 2.5
CSDA score: average of all three components 1.7 1.3 1.4 0.3 0.3
CSDA score: average of all three components to
1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5
nearest 0.5
Enabling
The national-level policy frameworks guiding sanitation service delivery in urban settings have historically
been divided under separate health, urban development, and environmental policies. As of 2017,
however, national-level FSM policies are now included under the Integrated Urban Sanitation and
Hygiene Strategy (IUSHS) led by the Ministry of Health and focused on the entire FSM service chain. The
IUSHS leverages the Government of Ethiopia’s WASH Implementation Framework and Memorandum of
Understanding among the Ministries of Health, Education, Water, Irrigation, Energy, and Finance and
Economic Development. The strategy recognizes the importance of improving hygiene standards and
addresses cross-cutting aspects such as environmental protection, gender, and private sector
engagement. The IUSHS highlights the importance of sustainability of services and calls for the
participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises in sanitation service delivery. It recognizes the
potential for sanitation services to benefit from cross-subsidies from water service delivery and
emphasizes the need for long-term financing arrangements. The IUSHS recognizes town or city
governments, led by the chief executive (i.e., mayor or city manager), bear the responsibility for the
expansion and maintenance of sustainable sanitation services within their jurisdictions.
While the IUSHS is a strong national policy document, it has not been widely communicated and
operationalized at the sub-national levels. Stakeholders, including the city manager in Woliso, reported
not being aware of the IUSHS.

Institutional roles for delivering and sustaining sanitation services in Woliso are well defined. The
municipality’s Department of Sanitation and Beautification is responsible for coordinating sanitation
services, managing the FS disposal sites, construction and management of public latrines, and
enforcement of regulations related to household-level waste management. The Health Office, through
its Health Extension Promotion activities, is responsible for promoting safe sanitation and hygiene
practices at the household level. Households are responsible for the construction and maintenance of
toilets on their premises. Other important municipal players include the Environmental Protection and
Climate Change Office, which has the responsibility to regulate waste management, and the
Construction Department, which is responsible for building code compliance, including the minimum
standards for sanitation facilities.
To date, enforcement of building codes and environmental regulations has been weak, a finding
substantiated by the peripheral location of these two offices in the ONA (see Figure 8 on page 20).
Enforcement of safe FS disposal by commercial entities is especially lax, leading some high-volume
polluters to discharge their waste into open drains and the river to avoid paying emptying fees.
The Sustainability Checks found the WWSSE Board to be the most active coordination platform
involved in planning and budgeting for sanitation services, based on the results of KIIs. The Board is led
by the city manager and includes representation from most stakeholders in the sector, including civil
society, but its activities are limited to oversight of the utility’s operations that focus on extraction,
transport, and disposal, and not sanitation service delivery at large.
Importantly, Woliso lacks a city-wide strategic plan for sanitation service delivery. Additionally, neither
the municipality nor WWSSE has established targets for sanitation services to hold themselves
accountable for maintaining or improving services over time.
The One WASH National Program (OWNP) is the overarching public-sector mechanism through which
WASH services in Ethiopia are planned, budgeted for, implemented, and monitored. The guidelines say
towns are required to have a sanitation master plan to be eligible for funding, although this condition has
not applied in the case of Woliso. At the national level, over 95 percent of the OWNP’s resources focus
on and target water supply. This disproportionate emphasis on water over sanitation is reflected in the
current fiscal year budget allocation for the municipality from OWNP. More than 97 percent of ETB 160
million ($572,899) goes to address water supply needs. A summary of financing mechanisms for sanitation
services in Woliso is found in Table 3 on page 17.

Table 3. Mechanisms for Financing Sanitation Services in Woliso15
Financing
Description
Mechanism
National Level
Consolidated The Consolidated WASH Account is administered by the Federal Ministry of
WASH Account Finance and Economic Development. Most donor funding for the sector is
channeled through this mechanism. The Water Resource Development Fund 16
appraises project requests from sub-national levels, signs agreements with
Chairs of respective utility boards, and disburses funds to the utilities. In 2017,
WWSSE was the recipient of a Consolidated WASH Account loan of ETB 160
million ($572,899) for its Water Supply Development Expansion project.
Approximately three percent of the funding is allocated to sanitation but details
were not shared with the survey team.
Town Level
Woliso The Municipality generates revenue locally through taxes on income, sales
Department of (goods and services), etc. Less than five percent is allocated to sanitation
Finance and annually. This is mostly used to cover running costs (e.g., staff salaries) and solid
Economic waste management services that seem to have higher political priority than
Development excreta management. The municipal government has never made an investment
in FSM services from this fund.
Woliso Municipal Approximately 10 percent of the revenue is generated from municipal taxes and
Office fees (e.g., permits, sanitation charges to businesses). These funds are typically
used to cover the running costs of solid waste management.
Community Level (“Off-Budget Systems”)
NGOs One-off investments by NGOs for school construction and communal toilets.
Until recently, funding from NGOs accounted for 25 to 30 percent of sanitation
funding in Woliso.
Consumer direct A substantial amount of sanitation investments in Woliso come from end users
investment (households and commercial) in the form of investments in household
containment systems, user fees for shared sanitation services, and payments for
extraction services. The baseline was unable to accurately estimate the
magnitude of these investments.
With the exception of the utility’s purchase of the vacuum truck in 2013, recent capital investment in
sanitation services in Woliso has been low. Current budget allocations from the utility and the
15
From discussions with the head of the Sanitation and Beautification Department.
16
The Water Resources Development Fund was established to finance water and sanitation projects.

municipality for sanitation service delivery are unable to meet existing service demands and do not take
into account the future needs of the rapidly growing population.
The findings reveal the system has some elements required for basic service delivery, such as the
policies and institutional arrangements that are in place. Nonetheless, stakeholders are not aware of the
IUSHS, which prioritizes urban sanitation and provides guidance and a framework to bring together
critical stakeholders.
Developing
The high number of shared latrines (communal or public) in Woliso is due in part to the municipality’s
focus on equity concerns and work with NGOs to increase services in low-income areas. Findings from
the Sustainability Checks scorecard (see Annex 4 on page 34) suggest other equity-focused efforts such
as ensuring public toilets have separate facilities for men and women have occurred. As noted under
Objective 1 on page 8, the quality of service provided by these facilities is uneven and, in the absence of
government support, entirely dependent on the individual efforts of the Woman’s Association.
The quality of FSM services available through the WWSSE is intermittent and substandard. Services
remain inaccessible to large segments of the community because of cost barriers and limited truck
access. Recent periods of disposal site closure and the subsequent suspension of extraction services
provided by WWSSE have limited mechanized access to only high-income households and institutions
served by private providers from outside Woliso.
Health risks from current FSM practices are numerous, whether via commercial operators dumping FS
into open drains or unregulated FS disposal practices with local farmers. Although environmental
protection regulations pertaining to the disposal of FS exist, no standards to measure quality of services
delivered have been established. The absence of service delivery standards for service providers and for
dump site operation discourages political focus and accountability on these issues.
The survey team was unable to obtain records on public expenditures for sanitation service delivery
beyond what is presented in Table 3 on page 17. The absence of an overarching sanitation master plan
for the municipality and discussions with WWSSE suggest capital and operational expenditures to
maintain and expand sanitation services to meet minimum standards and future needs have not been
considered. In reporting its operation and maintenance costs for sanitation, the utility referenced only
costs for labor and the running the vacuum truck (e.g., fuel and repairs). Beyond operational
expenditures of the shared facilities, the municipality has made no investments to reduce environmental
contamination and exposure risks at the disposal site. Interestingly, the IFML found growing the budget
for sanitation services, through funding increases allocated by the national government and tariffs
collected from users, is central to improving sanitation services but unlikely in the near term.
In summary, the development of services reveals financing in the sector and provision of services remain
limited and these limitations (i.e., treatment and end-use or disposal) are likely to exacerbate as the
town’s population grows. Focus on increased coverage through provision of shared facilities and
attention to emptying services has been insufficient, particularly in light of the high percentage of tenants.

Sustaining
When FSM services are operational, WWSSE reports generating sufficient revenue from emptying
services to cover O&M costs of operating the vacuum truck. The O&M of shared sanitation facilities and
related cost recovery mechanisms is generally poor. While a list of all communal and public toilets can
be found in the municipality’s registry, no evidence was found that the municipality was actively
supporting management of these facilities upon completion of construction and handover to local
management groups. For example, the municipality has set guidelines for setting tariffs at shared facilities,
but it does not regulate the practice and community associations set their own tariffs independently.
A sizeable proportion (48 percent) of all households are tenants. Tenant households have little incentive
to invest in constructing or upgrading their latrines. This is evidenced by the higher percentage of
owners with “higher end” facilities, such as flush toilets, than non-owners with those facilities.
Conversely, tenants can and do pay for services. This means there is no barrier to providing sanitation
services to tenants, such as FS emptying or shared sanitation services. The quality of traditional latrines,
which tend to be unlined and difficult to empty, explains to some extent the low demand for emptying
services. However, settlement patterns of high-density households suggest demand should be higher in
many kebeles. These households often have space constraints, which limits the ability to rebuild or
relocate latrines.
Objective 3: To qualify the nature of relationships among local actors involved in service
delivery
Information used to respond to this objective was generated through applying the ONA and IFML. ONA
was used to examine three dominant relationship types: information sharing, problem solving, and
coordination among the participating organizations. The ONA simulation produced several graphics
depicting the nature of the relationships and strength of the interactions among the actors along with
quantitative metrics commonly used in the discipline of systems mapping (e.g., density, reciprocity,
degree, etc.). Below is a summary of the overall findings from the ONA followed by results for each of
the three specific relationship types.
Overall Structural Features of the Woliso Sanitation Services Delivery Network

A high level of informal information sharing exists among organizations, albeit with relatively little active
coordination of activities among members and very little formal reporting. The gap between the level of
information sharing and coordination is not surprising. One would not expect all instances of
information sharing to also include active coordination on activities. The magnitude of the difference
between these relationship types, however, is particularly notable in the Woliso network.
Maps depicting information sharing and coordination networks (see Figures 8 on page 20 and Figure 9
on page 22) indicate the sparsity of the coordination network and suggest a strong distinction between
“core” and “peripheral” groups of organizations in the network, particularly information sharing and
problem-solving relationships. The core group consists of the Town Department of Sanitation and
Beautification, the town manager of Municipal Services, the Water Supply and Sewage Utility, the two
kebele administrators, and the Town Health Extension Office, as would be expected given the roles and

responsibilities for delivering sanitation services described in the enabling environment section. Members
of this core group have twice as many relationships with one another as they do with organizations in
the periphery.
Figure 8. Information-sharing Relationship Network, with Core Group Involved in Horizontal Coordination
The IFML analysis also pointed to coordination between municipal and community stakeholders and
increasing community awareness of town sanitation services as key leverage points. It suggested the high
turnover of local officials involved in sanitation service delivery limits coordination and dissuades
progress toward a commitment to collectively improve services.
Specific Relationship Findings

Problem Solving
This relationship type focuses on types of requests made and received by stakeholders and their
reliability in addressing requests (noted by the requestor).
• The problem-solving network in Woliso is like the overall set of relationships described
above—heavily concentrated within the core group of stakeholders (see Figure 8 on page 20).
• Requesting expertise, such as technical assistance, was by far the most common type of
problem-solving relationship. In most cases, the requestor reported the support provided was
reliable. Relationships involving support requests for spare parts and equipment, however, had
the lowest rate of reliability, with 28.5 percent coded as “not reliable.” Organizations outside of
the core group had difficulty receiving reliable support for requests involving spare parts and
equipment, including requests from the Women’s Association responsible for management of
communal latrines.

Information Sharing
This relationship type focuses on information sharing outside of formal reporting, frequency (once per
month or more; less than once per month), and how the information is used (noted by the recipient).
• As with the problem-solving network, the information sharing network in Woliso is centered
around a core group of organizations sharing multiple interconnections. Although this group
largely overlaps with the core organizations in the problem-solving network, the Environmental
Protection and Climate Change and the Town Health offices are both additions to the core
information-sharing network.
• Two influential actors in the information sharing network are the kebele administrators.
Although these organizations’ structures do not have the same level of formal authority as the
municipal-level offices, the results indicate their relative importance as information brokers
within the network.
• Results from organizations identifying themselves as information recipients suggest information

is used when available, but most information is shared less than once per month.
• The least common relationship in the network is formal reporting. Respondents who received
reports expressed overall dissatisfaction with the timeliness and quality.
Coordination
This relationship type focuses on the direct coordination of activity planning or implementation among
stakeholders.
• As noted, coordination among actors is weak relative to other relationship types. Moreover, the
coordination network has a significantly different structure than the problem-solving and
information-sharing networks, with two distinct clusters of organizations rather than one
centralized core group (see Figure 9 on page 22).
• Coordination among a core of sanitation actors is notably horizontal in nature and lacks
participation in decision making and planning from certain stakeholders, such as the Women’s
Association, communal latrine operators, and the Finance and Development Office.

Figure 9. Coordination Network with Notable Clusters Highlighted
The findings and other analysis of the network structure reveal a few patterns within the Woliso
network: (1) there is currently a high level of information sharing among organizations, relatively low
density in active coordination of activities among members, and very little formal reporting; (2)
information sharing and problem solving exhibit similar overall network structures; and (3) there is a
strong distinction between a core group of organizations in the network and a peripheral group of
organizations in the network, particularly regarding information-sharing and problem-solving
relationships.

Discussion
This section describes discussions during a stakeholders’ workshop held on November 9–10, 2017 to
present, deliberate, and interpret the baseline findings. Shared facilities are important service options for
vulnerable segments, but these facilities are often poorly managed. Stakeholders felt SWS should
prioritize O&M of communal and public toilets because of the vital pubic service these facilities provide.
Focusing on shared facilities would provide SWS an opportunity to develop and test improved
management models that serve poor or low-income households that rely on communal and public
toilets and may be unable or unwilling to invest in an improved toilet but are seeking to improve their
sanitation situation.
Lack of coordination was a recurring theme throughout the workshop with participants generally
agreeing this factor has contributed to the status quo of inadequate sanitation services in the town. Of
particular note were the longstanding issues with the disposal site and the inadequate management of
communal and public latrines, an area the municipality has struggle to provide oversight and guidance
for. The relatively strong structures of local information sharing, however, suggest a real opportunity to
develop the network into a more coordinated body.
The high turnover of officials was cited by many stakeholders as one of the main contributing factors to
issues with disposal site. This led some to suggest the root cause of the issue was not turnover itself,
but the lack of a strong coordination mechanism within the existing administrative structures to sustain
relationships previous officials created with important local actors.
Conclusion
The assessment of sanitation services in Woliso reveals a mixed picture. A high percentage of
households use onsite facilities (approximately 90 percent), but the majority of these are unimproved.
FSM services exist but are unreliable and not utilized by much of the population. Areas of concern are
the environmental hazards from FS related to indiscriminate disposal of liquid waste in open drains by
local hotels and industry and unsanitary disposal practices at the disposal site are.
There are gaps in the enabling environment for sustainable services. The service delivery system has
some elements required for basic service delivery (e.g., policy frameworks, institutional arrangements,
and access to public funding), but the lack of enforcement of building codes and latrine standards, the
lack of a comprehensive sanitation service delivery plan, and lax accountability in terms of service
standards are significant obstacles to achieving and sustaining universal access to services. Public sector
financing to support current service levels is inadequate, a situation that will be exacerbated by the
town’s growth trajectory.
The baseline also reveals deficiencies in some types of key stakeholders’ relationships that have
implications for effective planning and improving of service delivery outcomes. The absence of the
Women’s Association as a core stakeholder indicates a missed opportunity to develop inclusive
solutions and improve sustainable management and financing for shared sanitation services. The ONA
suggests the importance of including kebele-level representatives as part of the core learning alliance

group to ensure wide dissemination of information to end users. The ONA results also indicate
coordination as a fundamental challenge to improving sanitation service delivery, a finding reinforced by
the IFML.
Emergence of a Learning Alliance

Based on the unanimous agreement of workshop participants on the need for greater coordination of
stakeholders involved in sanitation services in Woliso, the group voted to form a learning alliance to
improve coordination and engage with SWS on priority issues. At the request of the city manager (the
highest-ranking official in the municipality), stakeholders established a two-tiered learning alliance with
representation of all actors involved in delivering and maintaining sanitation services in Woliso. The first
tier, under the coordination of a steering committee represented by WWSSE and the Municipality’s
Health Extension, and Sanitation and Beautification Offices, provides the political will to drive
implementation. The steering committee is tasked with drafting and setting agendas of upcoming
meetings, carrying out tasks identified by the wider learning alliance (the second tier), and coordinating
bi-monthly learning alliance meetings. The second tier, comprised of the organizations who participated
in the stakeholders’ workshop, including a representative from Ambo University, develops the workplan
and activities to address the priority areas.
April 2018: First Learning Alliance Meeting
The first learning alliance meeting was held in April 2018. During the meeting, members
agreed to a Terms of Reference to guide their operations, selected priority areas as
informed by the baseline findings, and developed a Year 1 workplan focusing on two
priority areas. These priority areas are communal and public latrines (improving systems
involved in the management of shared sanitation services) and disposal sites (building
consensus on FSM). Learning alliance activities are organized according to priority areas
with designated thematic sub-groups compromising select stakeholders responsible or
involved with the issue at hand.

Annex 1: References
The following documents were consulted in the preparation of this report:
1. Central Statistical Agency (CSA) and ICF. 2016. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey.
2. Central Statistical Agency and World Bank. 2015. Living Standards Measurement Study.
3. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 2013. One WASH National Program: Program
document. Addis Ababa.
4. FDRE. 2016. Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy. Addis Ababa.
5. Government of Ethiopia. 2011. The WASH Implementation Framework (Full document).
6. World Bank. 2015. Ethiopia Urbanization Review.
7. World Bank. 2016. Strengthening institutional arrangements for better urban sanitation in
Ethiopia. Just in Time Series. Addis Ababa.
8. World Bank. May 2017. A Diagnostic of Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Poverty in the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
9. Woliso Town Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise. 2008. Annual Report.
10. Woliso Town General Profile (Amharic version). 2016.

Annex 2: List of Process Indicators for Sustainability of Service Delivery
Collected at Baseline
Indicator Data
Number of authorized and 0 (September 2017)
operational disposal site(s)
Monthly volume of sludge disposed of at 490 m3/month (2015–2016)17
authorized disposal site
Monthly volume of sludge removed by 490 m3/month (2015–2016)18
vacuum truck
Percentage of O&M costs for FSM 100% (2015–2016)
recovered through tariffs Annual operating costs were approximately ETB 130,00019
($6,000) and covered the 2015–2016 period when operations
included three trips per day20
Change in utility spending on sanitation Costs are typically ETB 130,000 ($6,000) per year but in 2015
the utility procured a vacuum truck for the amount of ETB 2
million ($70,000) using its own revenue
Change in municipal investments in As for the utility (above)
sanitation
Number of visits21 per month by vacuum Twenty-two trips per month (2015–2016); 66 percent of the
trucks (disaggregated by private versus trips for residential customers and 34 percent of the trips for
commercial customers) non-domestic customers (e.g., hotels, institutions, hospitals)22
Number of operational (including clear Public toilets: none (total=2)
maintenance plans) public toilets and Communal toilets: 30 (total=42) (November 2017) 23
communal toilets
17
Average data from June 2015 to July 2016; there is only a 12-month period for which data are available for the
entire period.
18
As above.
19
Comprises salaries for two staff, vacuum truck driver, and assistant (ETB 50,000) and running costs such as fuel
and maintenance (ETB 80,000).
20
The utility manager considers six trips per day as operating at full capacity. Therefore, the vacuum truck was
operating at 50 percent capacity during the 2015–2016 period and generated enough revenue to cover operating
costs.
21
Visit = service request; multiple trips (to empty) may occur for a single visit.
22
Calculated from trip logs and reconciled with revenue records by utility. Percentage represents number of trips
per customer and not actual number of customers. The actual percentage of non-domestic customers is lower,
but the utility has a regular arrangement with 6 to 7 hotels per month, and each emptying requires 3 to 5 trips.
23
Confirmed by health officer assigned to kebeles in Woliso by the Health Office. Twelve were not functioning
because they were full and overflowing (reported by health coordinator) and had not been serviced since closure
of the disposal site.

Annex 3: City Service Delivery Assessment Output for Woliso, Ethiopia (September 2017)
End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
Question Evidence/Scoring
question
1: policy is appropriate, approved (or in

Policy: Is provision of FSM draft form), acknowledged and available
services enabled by an 0.5: policy is appropriate, approved (or in
appropriate, acknowledged, 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 draft form), but not clearly acknowledged
and available policy document or available
(national or local or both)? 0: policy is not available, or inappropriate
to the context
1: roles defined and operationalized
Institutional roles: Are the
institutional roles and 0.5: roles clearly defined but not
Enabling: Policy operationalized, or not-defined by work
responsibilities for FSM 1 1 1 0.5 0.5
What are in practice
service delivery clearly defined
current and operationalized? 0: roles not defined or not
policies, operationalized
planning Legislation/regulation: Are 1: legal and regulatory mechanisms for
issues, and there national and/or local FSM exist and are operational
budgetary legal and regulatory
0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5: legal and regulatory mechanisms for
arrangements? mechanisms (i.e., bylaws and FSM exist but are not operational
means of enforcement) for 0: no legal and regulatory mechanisms for
FSM? FSM exist
Targets: Are there service 1: targets are clearly included
targets for (each part of) the 0.5: service levels are included, but no
FSM service chain in the city targets stated
Planning development plan, or is a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0
national development plan 0: no reference to service levels or
being adopted at the city targets
level?

End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
question
Investment: Is FSM 1: investment plan for FSM exists, based

incorporated into an on identified needs and addressing human
approved and used investment resource and TA needs
plan (as part of sanitation), 0.5: investment plan for FSM exists, but
including ensuring adequate 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 does not address human resource or
human resources and technical assistance needs
technical assistance? (Ideally a
medium term plan, but if not, 0: no investment plan for FSM
at least an annual plan)
Fund flows: Does government 1: coordination of investments is defined
have a process for and operationalized
coordinating FSM investments 0.5: coordination of investments is
Budget 1 0.5 0.5 0 0
(domestic or donor; e.g., defined, but not operationalized
national grants, state budgets,
0: no coordination of investments defined
donor loans and grants, etc.)?
1: annual public financial commitments are
sufficient to meet >75 percent of
Adequacy and structure: Are requirements (estimated need if no
the annual public financial targets set)
Developing:
commitments for FSM 0.5: annual public financial commitments
What is the
sufficient to meet the service are sufficient to meet >50 percent of
level of Expenditure 0 0 0 0 0
levels and needs for capital requirements (estimated need if no
expenditure,
expenditures and operational targets set)
degree of
expenditures in the coming 0: annual public financial commitments
equity, and
five years? insufficient to meet 50 percent of
level of
requirements (estimated need if no
output?
targets set)
Choice: Is there a range of 1: range of technical options exist (i.e., are
Equity affordable, appropriate, safe 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 offered formally) and are used by the
and adaptable technologies for urban poor

End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
question
FSM services available to meet 0.5: range of options exist, but are not
the needs of the urban poor? accessed by the urban poor, or just not
used
0: options are not present
1: funds, plans and measures are codified
Reducing inequity: Are there and in use
specific and adequate funds, 0.5: funds, plans and measures are
plans and measures to ensure 0.5 0 0 0 0 codified but not in use
FSM serves all users, and
specifically the urban poor? 0: no funds, plans and measures codified
1: capacity growing at a pace to meet >75
Quantity/capacity: Is the percent of the needs or demands and
capacity of each part of the targets to protect health
FSM value chain growing at
0.5: capacity growing at a pace to achieve
the pace required to ensure
0.5 1 1 0 0 >50 percent of needs or demands and
access to FSM meets the
targets to protect health
needs or demands and targets
0: capacity insufficient to meet 50 percent
that protects public and
of the needs or demands and targets to
environmental health?
protect health
Outputs 1: >75 percent of services are of an
adequate public health standard, at the
respective stage in the service chain
Quality: Is the quality of FSM
0.5: >50 percent of services of an
sufficient to ensure
adequate public health standard, at the
functioning facilities and 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0
services that protect against
service chain
risk through the service chain?
0: less than 50 percent of services are of
an adequate public health standard, at the

End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
question
1: O&M costs known and >75 percent

Cost recovery: Are O&M met (through appropriate mechanisms)
costs known and fully met by
either cost recovery through 0.5 1 1 0 0 0.5: O&M costs known and >50 percent
user fees and/or local revenue met
or transfers? 0: O&M costs not known and/or <50
percent met
O&M
Standards: Are there norms 1: norms and standards exist, are
and standards for each part of monitored and sanctions applied
the FSM value chain that are 0.5: norms and standards exist and are
Sustaining: 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
systematically monitored monitored, but no sanctions applied
What is the
under a regime of sanctions 0: norms and standards (if they exist) are
status of
(penalties)? not monitored
O&M, what
provisions are 1: demand generation policies, procedures
made for Demand: Has government or programs are being implemented, with
service (national or city authority) resulting demand for services growing and
expansion, developed any policies and being responded to
and what are procedures, or planned and 0.5: demand generation policies,
current undertaken programs, to 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 procedures or programs are being
service stimulate demand of FSM implemented (or partially implemented),
outcomes? services and behaviors by but resulting demand is not fully
Expansion households and responses by addressed
service providers? 0: demand generation policies, procedures
or programs are not being implemented
Sector development: Does 1: programs and measures to strengthen
the government have ongoing service provision have been/are being
programs and measures to implemented; service providers are
0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0
strengthen the role of service organized; their actions are coordinated
providers (private or public) and the FSM services they provide are
in the provision of FSM expanding

End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
question
services, in urban or peri- 0.5: programs and measures to strengthen

urban areas? service providers have been implemented
or partially implemented; the majority of
service providers remain largely
disorganized and the FSM services they
provide are not expanding at an
appropriate rate
0: programs and measures to strengthen
the service providers do not exist (or
exist on paper only and have not been
implemented); the service providers
remain disorganized and the FSM services
they provide are not expanding
1: >75 percent of FS generated is
managed effectively, at this stage of the
service chain
Quantity: Percentage of total
FS generated by the city 0.5: >50 percent of FS generated is
0.5 0 0 0 0 managed effectively, at this stage of the
effectively managed within
each part of the service chain. service chain
0: <50 percent of FS generated is
Service managed effectively, at this stage of the
outcomes service chain
1: Hygienic FSM systems and services are
affordable and readily available in low-
Equity: To what extent do the
income communities
city's FSM systems ensure
0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5: Hygienic FSM systems and services
adequate services for low-
are available on a partial or piecemeal
income communities?
basis in low-income communities (or in
some)

End-use/Disposal
Containment
Conveyance
Treatment
Emptying
Sub-
question
0: Hygienic FSM systems and services are

not available to any significant extent in
low-income communities
Max scores 9.5 7.5 8 2 2

Annex 4: Service Provider Level Sustainability Score
Service Provider
0 25 50 75 100 Score
Scores
Local private sector with
No latrine Artisans in town, but Artisans in town and
capacity to construct,
SP-I-1 artisans in the not organized and organized and 50
repair, and improve
town trained for latrines trained for latrines
latrines
…and/or private
service provider
…and in operation
No liquid waste engaged in …and in treatment
SP-I-2 Liquid waste services By municipality of liquid waste 25
services extraction and plant development
treatment
transportation of
liquid waste
Access to septic emptying Takes longer than Available within Available within Available within one
SP-I-3 Not available 0
services seven days seven days three days day
SP-I-4 Inadequate number Sufficient public Sufficient adequately Sufficient well

Public latrines built and
Not available (<half of required) latrines available but managed public managed public 25
effectively operational
available poorly managed latrines latrines
User fee for public User fee for public …and recuperation
No user fee for
Financial viability of public latrine use, but it latrine use, which ….and the costs of of investment costs
SP-F-1 public latrine 0
latrines does not cover the covers the O&M desludging and future
use
O&M costs costs rehabilitation costs
Affordability of liquid Affordable without Affordable without Affordable without

Not affordable Only affordable with
SP-F-2 waste management subsidy to some subsidy to most subsidy to all 75
to households subsidy
services for households households households households
Availability of social
Separate facilities for Separate facilities for
SP S-1 inclusive public latrine No separate 50
men and women men and women and
facilities facilities for
suitable latrines for

Service Provider
0 25 50 75 100 Score
Scores
men and people with
women disabilities
Average service provider score 25
Service authority
0 25 50 75 100 Score
scores
….and town
Town-level strategy and …and interventions
No policy and ... and awareness on undertakes
interventions for reaching Policy and strategy for vulnerable
SA-F-2 strategy for policies and comprehensive 100
the poorest with for social equity included in town
social equity strategies is there actions to address
sanitation facilities annual plan
social equity
…which has been
No sanitation costed for both
Sanitation annual Sanitation strategic …and sources of
Town sanitation master strategic plan capital investments
SA-P-1 plan but no strategic plan and sanitation funding have been 0
plan or municipal as well as recurrent
plan annual plan identified
annual plan costs (Campano/
support costs)
No pit or
Mostly formal pit or
septic tank Mostly informal pit
septic tank emptiers …and registered and
Formalization of pit and emptiers in the or septic tank …organized by
SA-P-2 (vacuum truck), regulated by the 75
septic pit emptiers town and its emptiers (manual municipality
coming from outside town
surrounding emptiers)
the town
area
No (or
incomplete or
Effective asset outdated) Some public and All public and
SA-Inf- …and condition ….. and replacement
management (public and registry of communal latrines communal latrines 50
1 identified plan developed
communal latrines) public and registered registered
communal
latrines

Service Provider
0 25 50 75 100 Score
Scores
Construction Construction quality Construction quality ….and action is
SA- Checks on construction … using standard
quality is not is checked only for is checked for public taken when faults 75
Infr-2 quality checklists
checked public latrines and private latrines are observed
The
municipality has
not set tariff The municipality The municipality
regulations, nor provides guidelines provides guidelines … and has set
Tariff and performance …. and enforced the
does it provide for tariff setting to for tariff setting to performance
regulation for public and service provider 25
guidelines for public and communal public and communal benchmarks for
communal latrines benchmarks
tariff setting to latrines but does not latrines and regulate service providers
public and regulate tariffs set tariffs
SA-R- communal
1 latrines
Coordination at town
No … with agreed
level between Coordination … meeting on ….and a joint annual
SA-L-1 coordination actions based on 50
stakeholders involved in structure monthly basis plan
structures meeting
urban sanitation
No sludge
disposal and
No sludge disposal
Safe disposal of sludge in treatment site Sludge disposal and
and treatment site in …and liquid waste is
SA-E-1 an environmentally sound in place, and no treatment site in …. and reused 0
place; study and plan treated
manner study of plan place
for safe disposal
for safe
disposal
Average service authority score 48

To learn more about the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership, visit:
http://www.globalwaters.org/SWS
Tetra Tech, Inc.

159 Bank Street, Suite 300
Burlington, Vermont 05401 USA
Telephone: (802) 658-3890

Fax: (802) 495-0282
Lucia Henry, Associate

lucia.henry@tetratech.com
Jonathan Annis, Associate

jonathan.annis@tetratech.com

Sanitation in Small Towns - Woliso, Ethiopia: Baseline Assessment Synthesis Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanitation in Small Towns - Woliso, Ethiopia: Baseline Assessment Synthesis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Report

Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership

SANITATION IN SMALL TOWNS –

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT i

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT ii

CSDA City Service Delivery Assessment

ETB Ethiopian Birr (Currency)

FSM Fecal Sludge Management

IFML Iterative Factor Mapping and Learning

IUSHS Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy

KII Key Informant Interview

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ONA Organizational Network Analysis

OWNP ONE WASH National Program

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SWS Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership

UCB University of Colorado Boulder

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

WWSSE Woliso Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT iii

Stakeholders Persons or organizations with a vested interest or influence on WASH systems.

Systems-based An adaptive set of multifaceted interventions that support individual,

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT iv

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT v

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 1

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 2

Figure 1. SWS Theory of Change

3. To qualify the nature of relationships among actors involved in service delivery.

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 3

Figure 2. Administrative (Regional) Map of Ethiopia

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 4

Table 1. Overview of Tools Used in the Baseline Assessment

4 SFD Initiative (2014)

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 5

1. Number of authorized and operational disposal site(s);

2. Monthly volume of sludge disposed of at authorized disposal site;

3. Monthly volume of sludge removed by vacuum truck;

5. Utility’s annual spending on sanitation services;

6. Municipal investment in sanitation services;

Data Collection and Sampling

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 6

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 7

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 8

Type of household toilet Shared facilities and open defecation

Figure 4. Containment Types from the Household Survey

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 9

Emptied it by myself (manual

Contracted the municipal service

Figure 3. Type of Emptying Services Used when Pits/Septic Tank is Full

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 10

Treatment and Disposal

Figure 6. Timeline of Utility Emptying Services Operation

9 WWSSE total revenue 2015–2016 = water ($225,871) + sanitation ($12,329).

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 11

2. There is a 50 percent risk of groundwater contamination, as groundwater depth is reportedly 3

5. WWSSE mechanized emptying services have resumed; and

6. Twenty percent of households use private sector emptying services.

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 12

13 The SFD presents a snapshot of the situation in September 2017.

WOLISO SANITATION SERVICES BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP REPORT 13

14 The CSDA scoring mechanism is presented in Annex 3 on page 27.